COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. T SARALA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE GIT, Thiruvananthapuram has filed this appeal against the order of the Tribunal, Cochin Bench in ITA No. 695/Coch/1995.

(2.) THE respondent -assessee is a cashew exporter. In the assessment under the IT Act (for short 'the Act') for the year 1992 -93 the assessee claimed deduction under s. 80HHC of the Act. The AO disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the certificate as contemplated under Sub -section (4A) of Section 80HHC from the export house in Form No. 10CCAE did not accompany the return. In the appeal filed by the assessee the CIT(A) allowed the claim following the decision of this Court in the case of CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. : [1976]103ITR835(Ker) . Being aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal relying on its earlier decision in the case of Sri Krishnan Nair ITA No. 688/Coch/1995, dismissed the appeal. Against the said order the Revenue has raised three questions of law. The question is as to whether the certificate contemplated under Sub -section (4A) of Section 80HHC is to be produced along with the return. The Tribunal in Krishnan Nair's case (supra) has taken the view that the requirements of production of certificate along with the return is only directory and that the certificate can be produced at any time before the completion of the assessment. The decision of the Tribunal in Krishnan Nair's case (supra) came up for consideration before this Court in CIT v. G. Krishnan Nair : 2003(1)KLT428 where it was held that the requirement of filing the declaration along with the return of income contemplated under Sub -section (4A) of section 80HHC is only directory and the filing of the declaration to claim the benefit is no doubt, mandatory. It was also held that since the time of filing the declaration is directory in nature it can be filed at any time before the completion of the assessment.

(3.) THERE is no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.